/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11629998
particle physicist here

we set up an experiement in the LHC in which we increase the speed of a particle first by 0.9 m/s, then 0.09 m/s, then 0.009 m/s. The experiment was continued for a long time. The particles speed never was 1 m/s. Thus we have concluded that 0.9... =/= 1. Additionally, we concluded that 0.9... actually doesn't exist, as it is impossible to have an infinite number of 9s as we showed. No matter how many times we repeated the experiment, the number of 9s would always be finite.

Can someone who knows this shit explain the double-slit experiment from the perspective of someone who understands the premise?

How big is the slit? Can’t they shoot straight?

Have some OC i drew on a napkin

>>11629998
Particle physicist here. Who would have thought this field would have so much writing! Grant proposal this, email that. I mean my major was physics, not english, amirite? hahaha wow but it's great to pass the time and change the pace with my fellow physicists. But each little inconsequential discovery in this field really makes it worth it, even though nobody cares about it other than other academics.

>>11630119
Based

>>11629998
Actual particle physicist here. Relativity was recently disproven and my coworkers are all panicking. There saying we're all going to lose our job. We can't let the public know, it needs to stay a secret. This is really bad guys. I'm scared.

>>11630145
why would you use a tool to draw the semicircles but then go ragged with the freehand straight-lines. It's as though you were...uncertain about the right path to take

>>11630357
I had a spool of string for the circles and a small floppy cardboard box as a shitty straight edge.

It wasn’t fired in a straight line?

How wide does a slit have to be to cause electrons to do quantum-chad-magic?

Why do you act smug? Everybody knows you don't know the right answer either.

In my experience, people who use the word 'woo' are not scientists, they are hardcore skeptics from braindead forums like skeptic inquirer.

>>11630535
I’m not trying to be smug anon it’s that my anger seeps into my bad humour.
I have no grounds to stand on as the loser king of poopoopeepee, please now let’s discuss the double-slit napkin.

>>11629998
>.9999% .9999 posts
so 1%?

>>11629998

bump
op left.
I’m still here with my napkin.

>>11630119
So if you had a cold surface that was always maintained at absolute zero, and placed a warm ball of steel upon it,(assume the steel deosn't explode or something like that) does the temperature of the steel ever reach completely absolute zero?

>>11630818
ICE9 incoming

>>11630119
>>11630146
>>11630173
we are graced by three lords! call for the local woman of ill repute, lest they investigate their own particles without assistance. When done, please join the local team, who are currently taking an inventory of all the electrons. Soon we'll know where they all are, where they're all going, and at what speed.
>>11630564
you know what it were, that I did mean

>>11630145
Wtf is this real?

>>11630145
How does the double slit experiment work??? Wtf

>>11630119
Crusader for the ONE TRUE FAITH of a FINITE and DISCRETE Universe and also part time particle physicist with doctorates in astrophysics and weed control, reporting in, SIR!

I learned zero does not exist and I discovered that numbers are plucked from the Universe by subtraction. Given that the Universe is finite it stands to reason that the number line ends somewhere at a number which represents the entirety of the Universe. I call this number "MOAN", which means "Motherfucker of all Numbers". MOAN is defined as the number to which nothing can be added because there is nothing left to add. Attempting to do so means you sail off the edge of the Universe.

Where is my Holy Grail award?

>>11630145
The slit is large enough to allow particles to pass through

just look up the ways its been done, its not just a thought experiment.

>>11633289
I have looked into it in the past when I understood what the premise was, and also recently when I began doubting the original premise.
I’m suggesting it has to do with the diffraction of particles at the opening of the slit (like I drew above with the string-spool)

The middle of pic related, where particles “should” pass through the slit cleanly, doesn’t account for diffraction (particles bumping into the specific geometry of the open slit) in my thinking.

Sorry if this is annoying. I like asking questions.

>>11633343
For example this experiment is based on the middle picture being “what you would expect” when particles are fired through the slit, which is false. I would expect diffraction.

Or precisely, at least, a clean straight shot.

This is where I am hung up, how individual particles are aimed at the slits.
It seems that it’s still a wide beam of particles, like light in my topmost drawing, and that maybe they erroneously think that it is equivalent to firing single particles, like in my bottommost drawing.

I appreciate any more replies on this.

>>11630818
>Is zero energy plus some energy equal to zero energy?

>>11630145
>>11630145
>>11630145
Here’s the napkin for reference
>>11633451

Going through a slit by definition is a collision with the slit right??

bump

damnit

>>11633343
Why is it expected that the particles would travel straight?
>>11633451
If the electrons go through "one at a time," is it known which slit they pass through? How did they behave when one slit was closed?

>>11633642
>An electron beam with energy of 600 eV, which corresponds to a de Broglie wavelength of 50 pm, was generated with a thermionic tungsten filament and several electrostatic lenses. The beam was collimated with a slit of 2 μm width and 10 μm height placed at 16.5 cm. The double-slit was located 30.5 cm from the collimation slit.

I’m really not sure man, and yes I would think it would travel straight but it seems like all the shots are scattered.
I would like to see if they can shoot a straight electron, which they try to do, but I’m not sure if they really did.

It seems like a beam would produce diffraction (like light in the napkin pic), and that all they did was pulse the beam at such a slow rate that it produced the expected diffraction at a slow rate through scattered plot points, but I’m still uncertain if we can prove that it was every truly a single particle (in a probabilistic position inside this beam) being fired from that beam.

Is this basically like firing single atoms with electron shells at target, in that the atom would hit the target accurately but the electron would hit based on where it’s probabilistic position in the shell was at the time of impact?

>>11633679
To try and make this clearer, in the top part of the napkin pic, the beam of light, it shows many particles travelling in the same direction constituting this beam; when in reality, each particle originating from the source of the beam is staggered 1Hrtz apart and distributed inside this beam probabilistically?

That there is no such thing as a beam in terms of an even stream of light particles, but instead individual particles pulsed so rapidly they appear as a beam and whose position is probabilistically scattered within the beam?

So instead of it being a uniform beam, particles in the beam are staggered?